FDR's "Four Freedoms" Speech: Freedom by the Fireside | EDSITEment FDR's "Four Freedoms" Speech: Freedom by the Fireside Tools The Lesson Introduction Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 32nd President of the United States (1933–1945). His 1941 State of the Union address has been immortalized as the "Four Freedoms" speech. Credit: Courtesy of American Memory at the Library of Congress. Sometimes we fail to hear or heed these voices of freedom because to us the privilege of our freedom is such an old, old story. —Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in his Third Inaugural Address, January 20, 1941. Full text of the speech is available through the EDSITEment resource, Presidential Speeches . While many of the most frequently-studied statements about freedom were published in the form of written documents such as the Bill of Rights or the Magna Charta , the library is certainly not the only place where Americans encounter references to freedom. On radio and television, on the campaign trail and at press conferences, our public officials appeal to the cause of freedom every day.

The world of political oratory provides a living laboratory for studying the place of "freedom" within public discourse. Some of the most thought-provoking—and influential—musings on freedom were first presented not in books or in pamphlets, but broadcast from podiums and grandstands. One of the most famous political speeches on freedom in the twentieth century was delivered by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in his 1941 State of the Union message to Congress. The address is commonly known as the "Four Freedoms" speech, and an excerpt is available through the EDSITEment-reviewed website POTUS—Presidents of the United States . In the relevant part of the speech, President Roosevelt announced: In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression -- everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way -- everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want -- which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants -- everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear -- which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor-- anywhere in the world. In bold and plain language, Roosevelt's declaration raises many of the broad questions underlying any discussion of freedom. This lesson will introduce students to some of the rudiments of political theory embedded within FDR's vision. The tone set by FDR in his "Four Freedoms" speech has been imitated by his successors and by his counterparts in other countries. Students today are so accustomed to hearing freedom invoked rhetorically as a matter of course that the word sometimes signifies little more than something to feel vaguely good about. This lesson will examine some of the nuances, vagaries, and ambiguities inherent in the rhetorical use of "freedom." The objective is to encourage students to glimpse the broad range of hopes and aspirations that are expressed in the call of—and for—freedom. NOTE: This lesson may be taught by itself, or it may serve to introduce or complement lessons on any of the books included in the We the People Bookshelf on Freedom .

For a brief overview of lesson plans that may be used in conjunction with the We the People Bookshelf on Freedom, please consult EDSITEment's July 2004 Spotlight . Guiding Questions What does FDR's "Four Freedoms" speech reveal about the variety of different attitudes, priorities, and political philosophies encompassed by the word "freedom"? Learning Objectives Students will become familiar with the substance, context, subtext, and significance of the most famous portion of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's 1941 State of the Union Address. Students will understand the influence of political rhetoric and oratory on the ongoing process of refining our definitions of "freedom." Students will be able to explain, on a very rudimentary level, longstanding theoretical debates over the scope and meaning of freedom. Students will be able to locate FDR, the United States Constitution, and their own attitudes within the context of these debates. Preparation Instructions Copy and distribute the portion of FDR's "Four Freedoms" speech excerpted in the Introduction. The excerpt is most readily accessible through the EDSITEment-reviewed website POTUS—Presidents of the United States .

Teachers should also read the full version of FDR's speech, which is accessible via the EDSITEment resource New Deal Network . Click on Annual Message to the Congress, 1941 in the Document Library's World War II section. Using the New Deal Network's Document Library, review and print the transcripts of some of FDR's fireside chats . Reading very short excerpts from these transcripts in Activity 2 will help set the scene for the unique rapport FDR had established with the American people by the time he made his Four Freedoms speech. You may want to pay particularly close attention to the September 1934 chat entitled " Greater Freedom and Greater Security ," which will be used in Activity 2. The ostensible purpose of FDR's 1941 State of the Union was not to comment about freedom in the abstract, but to persuade a reluctant Congress to pass the Lend-Lease Act. Through speeches like the Four Freedoms speech, FDR successfully sold the public and the Congress on the idea of the Lend-Lease Act. The passage of the Act effectively ended American neutrality in World War II by essentially giving the British the badly needed weapons that they could not afford to buy.

This lesson does not focus on the debate over American participation in World War II, but it is impossible to read Roosevelt's "Four Freedoms" as anything other than an argument against American neutrality in the war. Initially, of course, FDR was—at least publicly—in favor of neutrality. This is the position he stakes out in a fireside chat entitled " On the European War ," available through the EDSITEment resource Presidential Speeches . In this speech, delivered in September 1939, FDR says the following: Let no man or woman thoughtlessly or falsely talk of America sending its armies to European fields. At this moment there is being prepared a proclamation of American neutrality. This would have been done even if there had been no neutrality statute on the books, for this proclamation is in accordance with international law and in accordance with American policy. It will be helpful, in considering the evolution of FDR's foreign policy, to consult a timeline of World War II related events that occurred during his presidency. An excellent WWII timeline is available through the FDR page of the PBS American Experience: The Presidents website. The American Experience site is available as a link from the EDSITEment resource New Deal Network .

For general background on the life and policies of President Roosevelt, you may consult any of the general internet biographies available through the American Presidency , a link from the EDSITEment resource POTUS—Presidents of the United States . Lesson Activities Activity 5. Two dimensions of freedom: "freedom to" versus "freedom from" Activity 1. Competing definitions of freedom: Is the idea of freedom universal? Activity 3 demonstrates that people do not always agree about which freedoms are most essential. More generally, we can add that people do not even agree about what counts as freedom at all. But notice that President Roosevelt's vision of freedom is a universal one. He emphasizes his hope that each of the freedoms he lists will take hold "everywhere in the world." Discuss: Is it possible to distinguish between ideas of freedom that are specific to certain times and places and ideas of freedom that are universal? How should we address disagreement about the meaning of freedom? What does the Declaration of Independence tell us about the universality of human freedom? How does the American Constitutional system handle disagreement about the meaning of freedom? Does the system of federalism and states' rights reflect the Founders' willingness to entertain more than one conception of freedom?

What about the Bill of Rights? In the long run, can more than one idea of freedom coexist within a single nation? Within the world? Activity 2. If you had to choose : Which freedoms are most essential? As students will surely notice during activity 1, a roomful of people will come up with a roomful of responses when asked to identify the four most essential freedoms. Now ask students to think about the significance of the particular four freedoms listed by FDR: expression, worship, economic prosperity, and physical security. Why do you suppose that these were the four freedoms he chose to highlight as "essential?" How did the historical circumstances of the speech (see timeline ) contribute to FDR's emphasis on these freedoms? How are these four freedoms foreshadowed in FDR's 1934 fireside chat on economic freedom and security for all Americans? How is the 1934 speech different? Obviously there are more than four freedoms that the President could have mentioned. Which potential freedoms did the President leave out? How do FDR's four freedoms compare with the essential freedoms that the class came up with in Activity 1? How do FDR's four freedoms compare with the liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights?

Explain to the class that FDR's goal in giving the "Four Freedoms" speech was to persuade Congress to end American neutrality in World War II through the passage of the Lend-Lease Act. If desired, you can read FDR's 1939 fireside chat in support of American neutrality in World War II(see the excerpt in Preparation Instructions). The arguments FDR makes in that address reflect the arguments of those who opposed the Lend-Lease Act in 1941. If time permits, discuss: How did FDR's attitude towards neutrality change, and how does the "Four Freedoms" speech explain that change? Whom is FDR trying to persuade and why? What might his opponents have listed as the four most essential freedoms? Activity 3. Setting the Scene: FDR, Freedom, and Fireside Chats Franklin Roosevelt ranks among the most gifted orators in American Presidential history. A large part of his reputation for eloquence comes from his institution of regular "fireside chats" with the American public. Families would gather around the radio to hear President Roosevelt offer words of hope, caution, and direction in regular radio broadcasts. These chats helped Roosevelt cultivate an unmatched rhetorical rapport with the American public.

Introduce the class to the idea of the fireside chat, and then read aloud from the chat entitled " Greater Freedom and Greater Security ." Roosevelt closes this speech, which addresses mainly worker's rights and issues of economic security, with the following paragraph: I still believe in ideals. I am not for a return to that definition of Liberty under which for many years a free people were being gradually regimented into the service of the privileged few. I prefer and I am sure you prefer that broader definition of Liberty under which we are moving forward to greater freedom, to greater security for the average man than he has ever known before in the history of America. Within this remark, there is an apparent tension between two alternative definitions of freedom. Discuss this tension with the class: What "definition of Liberty" is Roosevelt rejecting? How is his own idea of freedom new and different? Was the medium of the fireside chat effective in reflecting and communicating Roosevelt's new definition of freedom? These questions provide a nice introduction to the idea of competing definitions of freedom. In order to set the scene for the "Four Freedoms" speech, first remind students of the date of the speech: January 6, 1941.

You may want to note that the speech was delivered almost exactly 11 months before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, at a time when the United States was officially neutral in World War II. If desired, distribute copies of the World War II timeline from the FDR page of the PBS American Experience: The Presidents website. Now tell students that what they are about to hear was addressed to Congress as part of FDR's 1941 State of the Union speech. Make sure the class has a general idea of the significance of the State of the Union address. If desired, you can familiarize the class with the Constitutional basis of the State of the Union address by reading to them from Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution, which states: He [the President] shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient. (Note: The Text of the Constitution is available on the EDSITEment resource Digital Classroom .) You might also want to ask members of the class who have watched a State of the Union address live to recount their memories of the speech.

Now ask students to imagine that they have all crowded around a radio set in a cozy living room on a cold January day to listen to the President deliver his State of the Union address. Then, have a volunteer read the relevant part of the speech (excerpted above) aloud to the class. Or, for a more dramatic experience, students can actually listen to a recording of FDR himself delivering a few lines from the speech. The recording can be accessed and played from the Four Freedoms section of the Powers of Persuasion exhibit on the EDSITEment-reviewed National Archives websites. After listening to the recording of the speech, give students a moment to read and annotate the short excerpt on their own. If desired, have students read the brief commentary on the Four Freedoms speech provided in the Powers of Persuasion exhibit. The exhibit features four different World War II posters later designed by the artist Norman Rockwell in 1943, which promote the war effort by drawing from the text of the Four Freedoms speech. Discuss: How do these posters reflect the influence of FDR's "Four Freedoms" speech on the American public even two years after it was delivered? Activity 4.

Prologue Before showing students the text of the "Four Freedoms" speech, ask students to each come up with a list of their own four most essential freedoms. Then, briefly discuss: How do the students' selections differ from each other? Does the class reach consensus on any particular freedom? What are the most controversial choices, and why? Activity 5. Two dimensions of freedom: "freedom to" versus "freedom from" FDR's speech presents an opportunity to highlight a subtle distinction that has troubled political philosophers through the ages: the distinction between "freedom FROM" and "freedom TO." Notice that two of FDR's four freedoms are framed as freedom to do something: freedom to speak one's mind and freedom to worship as one sees fit. The other two freedoms are framed in terms of freedom from something: freedom from want and freedom from fear. Many scholars have taken care to distinguish sharply between these two types of freedom. The British political philosopher Isaiah Berlin called "freedom from …" negative liberty; he called "freedom to …" positive liberty.

Here is how Berlin defines those terms in an essay published in 1958: Negative liberty is the absence of obstacles, barriers or constraints … Positive liberty is the possibility of acting—or the fact of acting—in such a way as to take control of one's life and realize one's fundamental purposes. Of course, positive and negative liberty do not always describe two entirely different forms of freedom—they are often just two different ways of thinking about the same freedom. A single freedom might be conceived as the presence of a clear path to happiness or alternatively as the absence of obstacles to happiness. Almost any freedom can be expressed either as freedom TO or freedom FROM. "Freedom to worship God" in one's own way (FDR's second freedom) can just as easily be expressed as freedom from religious coercion. Similarly, "freedom from want" (FDR's third freedom) can just as easily be expressed as freedom to have a full stomach. Teenagers tend to enjoy the freedom that comes with being able to drive. But when they ask their parents for the keys to the car, are they enjoying the freedom from parental interference or are they enjoying the freedom to go out and see their friends whenever they wish?

Try asking your students which idea of freedom most closely resembles their way of thinking. Does the class agree, or does it depend on the individual? While positive and negative conceptions of freedom often represent two ways of saying the same thing, there are instances in which "freedom to" and "freedom from" do conflict. We can imagine a situation in which a person is subject to no external constraints but is not, on his own, able to support his basic needs or pursue his fondest ambitions. In other words, he is held back not by externally imposed restrictions, but by his own personal limitations. The person has "freedom FROM," but not "freedom TO." There is sometimes a tradeoff to be negotiated between these two dimensions of freedom. If desired, ask your students to brainstorm situations that might involve such a tradeoff, and ask them how they would resolve such situations. Theorists have long argued about which dimension of freedom should be honored by governments. Proponents of "negative liberty" contend that governments should avoid interfering with the private decisions of its citizens. "Freedom from" can therefore be understood as the ideal of non-coercion.

Proponents of "positive liberty" suggest that governments should intervene to make it possible for their citizens to achieve certain ends. "Freedom to" can thus be understood as the ideal of empowerment. Discuss: Are the liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution most readily understood as "negative" or "positive" liberties—or some combination? Assessment Ask your students to imagine that the school principal has just announced a new homework policy. Effective immediately, students will no longer be permitted to take their homework assignments home with them. Instead, students will be required to complete their assignments during a two-hour long study hall held each day immediately after school. Students will have access to all necessary texts and supplies, but they will not be permitted to leave the building until the two hours are up or until their work has been completed and turned in. The principal has explained the new policy as follows: "We want students to enjoy the time they spend out of school We think that by getting all homework over and done with before they leave the building, students will find themselves more free to pursue their extra-curricular interests. We have found that when students are left to manage their time as they see fit, they end up wasting a lot of time.

Of course, students will no longer be free to decide for themselves when to complete their assignments. We've taken the option of procrastination away from students, and we think that as a result, they are going to feel like their evenings are a lot more free." Divide the class into two teams and organize a debate over the new homework policy, focusing on the issue of freedom. Do students agree with the principal's statement that the new policy will make them more free? Do students prefer the freedom of doing their homework whenever they please, or do they prefer the freedom of being done with their work by the time they leave the school building? Students should be sure to note both the freedom TO and freedom FROM aspects of both sides of the debate. Completing the chart below will help debaters organize their thoughts: The new homework policy will give me greater freedom to… 1. 4. Extending The Lesson If desired, this debate can be used as a prelude to some of the more substantive historical controversies over the scope and meaning of freedom, such as debates over permissible limitations on free speech. The EDSITEment lesson plans The First Amendment: What's Fair in a Free Country?

and Regulating Freedom of Speech provide basic introductions to a number of Supreme Court cases exploring the Constitutional limitations on protected freedoms. The materials in either lesson may be suitable for students in grades 6-8. Also, students can find more examples of the centrality of "freedom" in American political rhetoric by visiting two EDSITEment-reviewed websites: Great American Speeches and Presidential Speeches . The speeches of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, both of whom invoke freedom profusely, may provide particularly rewarding points of comparison and contrast. Finally, because many of the most-studied Presidential speeches have taken the form of inaugural addresses, the background information provided in the EDSITEment lesson plan I Do Solemnly Swear: Presidential Inaugurations may be helpful in framing the discussion. Selected EDSITEment Websites The Four Freedoms by 5th Graders - YouTube The Four Freedoms by 5th Graders Want to watch this again later? Sign in to add this video to a playlist. Need to report the video? Sign in to report inappropriate content. The interactive transcript could not be loaded. Loading... Rating is available when the video has been rented. This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.

Published on Oct 18, 2014 On Friday, October 17, 2014, the 5th graders at Rising Leaders Academy, in Panama City, Florida, presented a Reader's Theater of skits they wrote themselves about the Four Freedoms. The 5th graders are studying the Four Freedoms as part of their Fall Expedition. ---------------------------------------------------- The Four Freedoms were goals articulated by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt on January 6, 1941. In an address known as the Four Freedoms speech (technically the 1941 State of the Union address), he proposed four fundamental freedoms that people "everywhere in the world" ought to enjoy: 1. Freedom of speech Voices of Democracy | FDR, “The Four Freedoms,” Speech Text FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT, 1941 STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS “THE FOUR FREEDOMS” (6 JANUARY 1941) [1] Mr. President, Mr.

Speaker, Members of the Seventy-seventh Congress: [2] I address you, the Members of the members of this new Congress, at a moment unprecedented in the history of the Union. I use the word “unprecedented,” because at no previous time has American security been as seriously threatened from without as it is today. [3] Since the permanent formation of our Government under the Constitution, in 1789, most of the periods of crisis in our history have related to our domestic affairs. And fortunately, only one of these–the four-year War Between the States–ever threatened our national unity. Today, thank God, one hundred and thirty million Americans, in forty-eight States, have forgotten points of the compass in our national unity. [4] It is true that prior to 1914 the United States often had been disturbed by events in other Continents. We had even engaged in two wars with European nations and in a number of undeclared wars in the West Indies, in the Mediterranean and in the Pacific for the maintenance of American rights and for the principles of peaceful commerce. But in no case had a serious threat been raised against our national safety or our continued independence.

[5] What I seek to convey is the historic truth that the United States as a nation has at all times maintained opposition, clear, definite opposition, to any attempt to lock us in behind an ancient Chinese wall while the procession of civilization went past. Today, thinking of our children and of their children, we oppose enforced isolation for ourselves or for any other part of the Americas. [6] That determination of ours, extending over all these years, was proved, for example, in the early days during the quarter century of wars following the French Revolution. [7] While the Napoleonic struggles did threaten interests of the United States because of the French foothold in the West Indies and in Louisiana, and while we engaged in the War of 1812 to vindicate our right to peaceful trade, it is nevertheless clear that neither France nor Great Britain, nor any other nation, was aiming at domination of the whole world. [8] And in like fashion from 1815 to 1914–ninety-nine years–no single war in Europe or in Asia constituted a real threat against our future or against the future of any other American nation.

[9] Except in the Maximilian interlude in Mexico, no foreign power sought to establish itself in this Hemisphere; and the strength of the British fleet in the Atlantic has been a friendly strength. It is still a friendly strength. [10] Even when the World War broke out in 1914, it seemed to contain only small threat of danger to our own American future. But, as time went on, as we remember, the American people began to visualize what the downfall of democratic nations might mean to our own democracy. [11] We need not overemphasize imperfections in the Peace of Versailles. We need not harp on failure of the democracies to deal with problems of world reconstruction. We should remember that the Peace of 1919 was far less unjust than the kind of “pacification” which began even before Munich, and which is being carried on under the new order of tyranny that seeks to spread over every continent today. The American people have unalterably set their faces against that tyranny.

[12] I suppose that every realist knows that the democratic way of life is at this moment being directly assailed in every part of the world–assailed either by arms, or by secret spreading of poisonous propaganda by those who seek to destroy unity and promote discord in nations that are still at peace. [13] During sixteen long months this assault has blotted out the whole pattern of democratic life in an appalling number of independent nations, great and small. And the assailants are still on the march, threatening other nations, great and small. [14]Therefore, as your President, performing my constitutional duty to “give to the Congress information of the state of the Union,” I find it, unhappily, necessary to report that the future and the safety of our country and of our democracy are overwhelmingly involved in events far beyond our borders. [15] Armed defense of democratic existence is now being gallantly waged in four continents. If that defense fails, all the population and all the resources of Europe, and Asia, and Africa and Australasia will be dominated by conquerors.

And let us remember that the total of those populations in those four continents, the total of those populations and their resources greatly exceeds the sum total of the population and the resources of the whole of the Western Hemisphere–yes, many times over. [16] In times like these it is immature–and incidentally, untrue–for anybody to brag that an unprepared America, single-handed, and with one hand tied behind its back, can hold off the whole world. [17] No realistic American can expect from a dictator’s peace international generosity, or return of true independence, or world disarmament, or freedom of expression, or freedom of religion–or even good business. [18] Such a peace would bring no security for us or for our neighbors. “Those, who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” [19] As a nation, we may take pride in the fact that we are softhearted; but we cannot afford to be soft-headed. [20] We must always be wary of those who with sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal preach the “ism” of appeasement.

[21] We must especially beware of that small group of selfish men who would clip the wings of the American eagle in order to feather their own nests. [22] I have recently pointed out how quickly the tempo of modern warfare could bring into our very midst the physical attack which we must eventually expect if the dictator nations win this war. [23] There is much loose talk of our immunity from immediate and direct invasion from across the seas. Obviously, as long as the British Navy retains its power, no such danger exists. Even if there were no British Navy, it is not probable that any enemy would be stupid enough to attack us by landing troops in the United States from across thousands of miles of ocean, until it had acquired strategic bases from which to operate. [24] But we learn much from the lessons of the past years in Europe-particularly the lesson of Norway, whose essential seaports were captured by treachery and surprise built up over a series of years. [25] The first phase of the invasion of this Hemisphere would not be the landing of regular troops. The necessary strategic points would be occupied by secret agents and by their dupes- and great numbers of them are already here, and in Latin America.

[26] As long as the aggressor nations maintain the offensive, they-not we–will choose the time and the place and the method of their attack. [27] And that is why the future of all the American Republics is today in serious danger. [28] That is why this Annual Message to the Congress is unique in our history. [29] That is why every member of the Executive Branch of the Government and every member of the Congress face great responsibility and great accountability. [30] The need of the moment is that our actions and our policy should be devoted primarily–almost exclusively–to meeting this foreign peril. For all our domestic problems are now a part of the great emergency. [31] Just as our national policy in internal affairs has been based upon a decent respect for the rights and the dignity of all of our fellow men within our gates, so our national policy in foreign affairs has been based on a decent respect for the rights and the dignity of all nations, large and small. And the justice of morality must and will win in the end.

[32] Our national policy is this: [33] First, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to all-inclusive national defense. [34] Second, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to full support of all those resolute people everywhere who are resisting aggression and are thereby keeping war away from our Hemisphere. By this support, we express our determination that the democratic cause shall prevail; and we strengthen the defense and the security of our own nation. [35] Third, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to the proposition that principles of morality and considerations for our own security will never permit us to acquiesce in a peace dictated by aggressors and sponsored by appeasers. We know that enduring peace cannot be bought at the cost of other people’s freedom. [36] In the recent national election there was no substantial difference between the two great parties in respect to that national policy. No issue was fought out on this line before the American electorate.

And today it is abundantly evident that American citizens everywhere are demanding and supporting speedy and complete action in recognition of obvious danger. [37] Therefore, the immediate need is a swift and driving increase in our armament production. [38] Leaders of industry and labor have responded to our summons. Goals of speed have been set. In some cases these goals are being reached ahead of time; in some cases we are on schedule; in other cases there are slight but not serious delays; and in some cases–and I am sorry to say very important cases–we are all concerned by the slowness of the accomplishment of our plans. [39] The Army and Navy, however, have made substantial progress during the past year. Actual experience is improving and speeding up our methods of production with every passing day. And today’s best is not good enough for tomorrow. [40] I am not satisfied with the progress thus far made. The men in charge of the program represent the best in training, in ability, and in patriotism. They are not satisfied with the progress thus far made. None of us will be satisfied until the job is done.

[41] No matter whether the original goal was set too high or too low, our objective is quicker and better results. [43] We are behind schedule in turning out finished airplanes; we are working day and night to solve the innumerable problems and to catch up. [44] We are ahead of schedule in building warships but we are working to get even further ahead of that schedule. [45] To change a whole nation from a basis of peacetime production of implements of peace to a basis of wartime production of implements of war is no small task. And the greatest difficulty comes at the beginning of the program, when new tools, new plant facilities, new assembly lines, and new ship ways must first be constructed before the actual materiel begins to flow steadily and speedily from them. [46] The Congress, of course, must rightly keep itself informed at all times of the progress of the program. However, there is certain information, as the Congress itself will readily recognize, which, in the interests of our own security and those of the nations that we are supporting, must of needs be kept in confidence. [47] New circumstances are constantly begetting new needs for our safety.

I shall ask this Congress for greatly increased new appropriations and authorizations to carry on what we have begun. [48] I also ask this Congress for authority and for funds sufficient to manufacture additional munitions and war supplies of many kinds, to be turned over to those nations which are now in actual war with aggressor nations. [49] Our most useful and immediate role is to act as an arsenal for them as well as for ourselves. They do not need man power, but they do need billions of dollars worth of the weapons of defense. [50] The time is near when they will not be able to pay for them all in ready cash. We cannot, and we will not, tell them that they must surrender, merely because of present inability to pay for the weapons which we know they must have. [51] I do not recommend that we make them a loan of dollars with which to pay for these weapons–a loan to be repaid in dollars. [52] I recommend that we make it possible for those nations to continue to obtain war materials in the United States, fitting their orders into our own program. And nearly all of their materiel would, if the time ever came, be useful in our own defense.

[53] Taking counsel of expert military and naval authorities, considering what is best for our own security, we are free to decide how much should be kept here and how much should be sent abroad to our friends who by their determined and heroic resistance are giving us time in which to make ready our own defense. [54] For what we send abroad, we shall be repaid, repaid within a reasonable time following the close of hostilities, repaid in similar materials, or, at our option, in other goods of many kinds, which they can produce and which we need. [55] Let us say to the democracies: “We Americans are vitally concerned in your defense of freedom. We are putting forth our energies, our resources and our organizing powers to give you the strength to regain and maintain a free world. We shall send you, in ever-increasing numbers, ships, planes, tanks, guns. This is our purpose and our pledge.” [56] In fulfillment of this purpose we will not be intimidated by the threats of dictators that they will regard as a breach of international law or as an act of war our aid to the democracies which dare to resist their aggression. Such aid . . .

such aid is not an act of war, even if a dictator should unilaterally proclaim it so to be. [57] And when the dictators, if the dictators, are ready to make war upon us, they will not wait for an act of war on our part. They did not wait for Norway or Belgium or the Netherlands to commit an act of war. [58] Their only interest is in a new one-way international law, which lacks mutuality in its observance, and, therefore, becomes an instrument of oppression. [59] The happiness of future generations of Americans may well depend upon how effective and how immediate we can make our aid felt. No one can tell the exact character of the emergency situations that we may be called upon to meet. The Nation’s hands must not be tied when the Nation’s life is in danger. [60] Yes, and we must all prepare–all of us prepare–to make the sacrifices that the emergency– almost as serious as war itself–demands. Whatever stands in the way of speed and efficiency in defense–in defense preparations of any kind–must give way to the national need. [61] A free nation has the right to expect full cooperation from all groups.

A free nation has the right to look to the leaders of business, of labor, and of agriculture to take the lead in stimulating effort, not among other groups but within their own groups. [62] The best way of dealing with the few slackers or trouble makers in our midst is, first, to shame them by patriotic example, and, if that fails, to use the sovereignty of government to save government. [63] As men do not live by bread alone, they do not fight by armaments alone. Those who man our defenses, and those behind them who build our defenses, must have the stamina and the courage which come from unshakable belief in the manner of life which they are defending. The mighty action that we are calling for cannot be based on a disregard of all things the worth fighting for. [64] The Nation takes great satisfaction and much strength from the things which have been done to make its people conscious of their individual stake in the preservation of democratic life in America. Those things have toughened the fibre of our people, have renewed their faith and strengthened their devotion to the institutions we make ready to protect.

[65] Certainly this is no time for any of us to stop thinking about the social and economic problems which are the root cause of the social revolution which is today a supreme factor in the world. [66] For there is nothing mysterious about the foundations of a healthy and strong democracy. The basic things expected by our people of their political and economic systems are simple. They are: [67] Equality of opportunity for youth and for others. [68] Jobs for those who can work. [69] Security for those who need it. [70] The ending of special privilege for the few. [71] The preservation of civil liberties for all. [72] The enjoyment . . . the enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard of living. [73] These are the simple, the basic things that must never be lost sight of in the turmoil and unbelievable complexity of our modern world. The inner and abiding strength of our economic and political systems is dependent upon the degree to which they fulfill these expectations. [74] Many subjects connected with our social economy call for immediate improvement.

[75] As examples: [76] We should bring more citizens under the coverage of old-age pensions and unemployment insurance. [77] We should widen the opportunities for adequate medical care. [78] We should plan a better system by which persons deserving or needing gainful employment may obtain it. [79] I have called for personal sacrifice. And I am assured of the willingness of almost all Americans to respond to that call. [80] A part of the sacrifice means the payment of more money in taxes. In my Budget Message I will recommend that a greater portion of this great defense program be paid for from taxation than we are paying for today. No person should try, or be allowed, to get rich out of the program; and the principle of tax payments in accordance with ability to pay should be constantly before our eyes to guide our legislation. [81] If the Congress maintains these principles, the voters, putting patriotism ahead of pocketbooks, will give you their applause. [82] In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. [83] The first is freedom of speech and expression–everywhere in the world.

[84] The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way–everywhere in the world. [85] The third is freedom from want–which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world. 86] The fourth is freedom from fear–which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor–anywhere in the world. [87] That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb. [88] To that new order we oppose the greater conception–the moral order. A good society is able to face schemes of world domination and foreign revolutions alike without fear.

[89] Since the beginning of our American history, we have been engaged in change–in a perpetual peaceful revolution–a revolution which goes on steadily, quietly adjusting itself to changing conditions–without the concentration camp or the quick-lime in the ditch. The world order which we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society. [90] This nation has placed its destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of its millions of free men and women; and its faith in freedom under the guidance of God. Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights and keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose. [91] To that high concept there can be no end save victory. Birth of a Nation: HIST US TO DATE Flash Cards: Koofers PRINT EXIT Birth of a Nation The Birth of a Nation (premiered with the title The Clansman) is a 1915 American silent film directed by D. W.

Bonus Army March The self-named Bonus Expeditionary Force was an assemblage of some 43,000 marchers-17,000 World War I veterans, their families, and affiliated groups - who protested in Washington, D.C., in spring and summer of 1932. Called the Bonus March by the news media, the Bonus Marchers were more popularly known as the Bonus Army. Bootleggers The term bootlegging originally came from concealing hip flasks of alcohol in the legs of boots. Calvin Coolidge John Calvin Coolidge, Jr., (July 4, 1872 January 5, 1933) was the 30th President of the United States (1923-1929). Generated by Koofers.com Court-Packing scheme The Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937, frequently called the court-packing plan, was a legislative initiative proposed by U.S. D-Day D-Day is a term often used in military parlance to denote the day on which a combat attack or operation is to be initiated.

Sixth of June 1944 Invasion into Normandy Double-V campaign In a 1942 letter to the Pittsburgh Courier, James G. Thompson called for a Double V Campaign to achieve two victories: over the Axis powers in World War II and over racial prejudice in the United States. FDIC The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is a United States government corporation created by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. It provides deposit insurance, which guarantees the safety of deposits in member banks, currently up to $250,000 per depositor per bank. Generated by Koofers.com Flappers "Flapper" in the 1920s was a term applied to a "new breed" of young Western women who wore short skirts, bobbed their hair, listened to jazz, and flaunted their disdain for what was then considered acceptable behavior. Four Freedoms The Four Freedoms were goals articulated by US President Franklin D. Roosevelt on January 6, 1941.

In an address known as the Four Freedoms speech (technically the 1941 State of the Union address), he proposed four fundamental freedoms that people "everywhere in the world" ought to enjoy: Freedom of speech and expression Freedom of worship Freedom from want Freedom from fear Good Neighbor Policy The Good Neighbor policy was the foreign policy of the administration of United States President Franklin Roosevelt toward the countries of Latin America. Grapes of Wrath Dust Bowl, Great Depression, Film. Western movement to mine gold; no gold to mine. Generated by Koofers.com Warren G. Harding Warren Gamaliel Harding (November 2, 1865 August 2, 1923) was the 29th President of the United States, serving from 1921 until his death from a heart attack in 1923. A Republican from Ohio, Harding was an influential newspaper publisher. Harlem Renaissance The Harlem Renaissance was a cultural movement that spanned the 1920s and 1930s. At the time, it was known as the "New Negro Movement", named after the 1925 anthology by Alain Locke.

Though it was centered in the Harlem neighborhood of New York City, many French-speaking black writers from African and Caribbean colonies who lived in Paris were also influenced by the Harlem Renaissance.[1] Herbert Hoover Herbert Clark Hoover (August 10, 1874 - October 20, 1964) was the 31st President of the United States (1929-1933). Pres during Great Depression Japanese Internment Camps Japanese-American internment was the move and internment by the United States government in 1942 of about 110,000 Japanese Americans and Japanese who lived along the Pacific coast of the United States to camps called "War Relocation Camps," in the wake of Imperial Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.[1][2] The internment of Japanese Americans was applied unequally throughout the United States.

Japanese Americans who lived on the West Coast of the United States were all interned, while in Hawaii, where more than 150,000 Japanese Americans composed over one-third of the territory's population, 1,200[3] to 1,800 Japanese Americans were interned.[4] Of those interned, 62% were American citizens.[5][6] Generated by Koofers.com Jazz Age The Jazz Age was a movement that took place during the 1920s or the Roaring Twenties from which jazz music and dance emerged. League of Nations The League of Nations (LON) was an intergovernmental organization founded as a result of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919-1920, and the precursor to the United Nations. Lindbergh Flight Lindbergh, then a 25-year old U.S.

Air Mail pilot, emerged from virtual obscurity to almost instantaneous world fame as the result of his Orteig Prize-winning solo non-stop flight on May 20–21, 1927, from Roosevelt Field[N 1] located in Garden City on New York's Long Island to Le Bourget Field in Paris, France, a distance of nearly 3,600 statute miles,[2] in the single-seat, single-engine monoplane Spirit of St. Louis. Lindbergh, a U.S. Army reserve officer, was also awarded the nation's highest military decoration, the Medal of Honor, for his historic exploit. Munich Pact of 1938 The Munich Pact (; ; ; ; ) was an agreement permitting Nazi German annexation of Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland. The agreement was negotiated at a conference held in Munich, Germany, among the major powers of Europe without the presence of Czechoslovakia. Today, it is widely regarded as a failed act of appeasement toward Nazi Germany. The agreement was signed in the early hours of 30 September 1938 (but dated 29 September).

The purpose of the conference was to discuss the future of the Sudetenland in the face of territorial demands made by Adolf Hitler. The agreement was signed by Nazi Germany, France, Britain, and Italy. The Sudetenland was of immense strategic importance to Czechoslovakia, as most of its border defenses were situated there, and many of its banks were located there as well. Thus, when Britain and France gave the Sudentenland to Germany, it was implied that they allowed Germany to take over all of Czechoslovakia as well Generated by Koofers.com National Recovery Act The National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), officially known as the Act of June 16, 1933 (Ch. 90, 48 Stat. 195, formerly codified at 15 U.S.C. sec. 703), was an American statute which authorized the President of the United States to regulate industry and permit cartels and monopolies in an attempt to stimulate economic recovery, and established a national public works program New Deal The New Deal was a series of economic programs passed by the U.S.

(FDR) Congress during the first term of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, President of the United States, from 1933 to 1938. The programs were responses to the Great Depression, and focused on what historians call the "3 rs": relief, recovery and reform. That is, relief for the unemployed and poor; recovery of the economy to normal levels; and reform of the financial system to prevent a repeat depression. Okies Okie is a term dating from as early as 1907, originally denoting a resident or native of Oklahoma. Pearl Harbor Attack 1941 Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor Surprise Attack December 7, 1941. The next day the United States declared war on Japan resulting in their entry into World War II. The attack was intended as a preventive action in order to keep the U.S. Pacific Fleet from influencing the war that the Empire of Japan was planning in Southeast Asia, against Britain and the Netherlands, as well as the U.S. in the Philippines. The base was attacked by Japanese aircraft (a total of 353, in two waves) launched from six aircraft carriers.

Generated by Four freedoms definition by Babylon’s free dictionary Wikipedia Dictionaries English Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia The Four Freedoms were goals articulated by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt on January 6, 1941. In an address known as the (technically the 1941 State of the Union address), he proposed four fundamental freedoms that people "everywhere in the world" ought to enjoy: Freedom of speech Freedom from fear See more at Wikipedia.org...

Question: Which US President, in a State of the Union address, proposed four fundamental freedoms?
Answer: Franklin D. Roosevelt